In Defence of Frank Miller

[Kolby Jack]

It not that women are portrayed sexily, it's that that's ALL they're good for in Miller comics. He's a misogynist. When he isn't having woman cause problems or being completely reliant on the men around them, he's portraying them as nothing but sexual objects. I think that's why people don't like how he portrays women. I'm all for having fictional women be sexy, but they should still be, ya know, PEOPLE. With convictions and motivations and personality beyond "I want the male hero inside me."

Okay but what if thats the only stories he wants to write? Should he only write what society finds acceptable?

If he wants to make money or not be called a talentless hack, yea. He can write whatever he wants, but he should be prepared to face criticism when he decides to publish it.

Frank-ly (nyuk nyuk nyuk), I'm not a fan of his writing style in general, but that's just because I'm a more upbeat kind of person who enjoys watching characters have fun in their worlds and not taking everything so seriously. Every story Miller writes is in a crapsack world, and I just don't like that. Again, personal preference. But there's no denying his portrayal of women is just... really, really awful. If you look at some of the quotes from him during the writing and character design process, you'll see what I mean. They're out there if you want to see them; I at least know Linkara cites a few as a reason for his disliking of Frank Miller.

A hack is someone that takes a job that he's not interested in doing just for the money. You're contradicting yourself.

Complaining about the way Miller portrays women in his comics is like bitching that John Woo's films have to many bullets and doves in it. It's just Miller's style. It may not be the best stories told ever, but you got to admit as far as exploitative male power fantasy writing goes Miller is pretty damn good at it.

Don't throw your dictionary at me, you know what I meant. And like I said, Miller can write about his childish "male power fantasy" all he wants, but when he publishes it, he opens it up to criticism and he can't choose who does and doesn't see it. It doesn't matter if it's "just his style," what matters is if the market likes it, and I'm of the opinion that it's sexist and misogynistic, and I'm not the only one who thinks so.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

I also have a bone to pick with the OP in that creators making sexualized characters, while not a bad thing, could at least create serious female characters more often.

My point would be, why? If some people only create one style of person because that is what they do, like to do, or the only thing they know how to do well, then why do they have to appease other people by doing something different from what they normally do?

If you don't like it, go somewhere else for what you want.

I'm a writer, and if I only want to write in one style I'm comfortable with, why should I write in another style because people want me to?

The advice that was always impressed upon by my creative writing professors was to "write what you know". Basically, to be a better writer, I should write about the things I have the most knowledge in. Of course the things I have the most knowledge about are the things I'm interested in and read about.

I like science fiction, fantasy, mysteries, and the type of romances that are in such things. That is what I read, so as a writer, I shouldn't be writing historical fiction, realistic drama, and other things.

If all he knows how to create is that style of women, or that is the style he is most comfortable creating, then, that is what he should create.

Why do you or anybody else have to impose your views or try to convince him to do otherwise?

What you should do is encourage the people starting out, not try to force established people to change.

I'm writing a fantasy series that doesn't have elves in it, they just aren't a part of the world I want to create. If people started telling me that it would be best if I also put in elves, I would laugh, say, "no", and continue writing what I want to write, to create the world I want to create.

 

[Reincarnatedwolfgod]

i don't know much about comics in general nor have i read one but
i have seen this
linkara's video on All-Star Batman and Robin #1-2
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/linkara/at4w/13422-asbr01
at 5:50 it show that character in here underwear and at 16:20 on the script is shown for that scene
and i have to say i want to see the script to verify this
but
assuming he wrote that he a perverted and lightly creepy
i don't know much about this character(vicky somethig) walking around in underwear in the start to properly form a definite option about her with out reading the comic my self but from what know so far it is not very promising

i don't know much about frank millers work but my take on fanservice is
but as long as the character is defined by personalty and actions a little bit fanservice does not hurt.
but there is a level were fan service too extreme and that level changes depending on the situation and how seriously the work is taking it self in what i am watching/reading

 

[JimB]

Okay, but what if those are the only stories he wants to write? Should he only write what society finds acceptable?

That's a straw man. No one is advocating censoring Mr. Miller's art.* The argument is that it has been a very long time since he has written a female character as anything other than a sex object, and that he's done it so frequently and consistently that some people (myself numbered among them) feel confident speculating about his attitude toward women.

--

*I am being generous with my use of this word to describe his products.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

That just seems sexist to me. That doesn't seem like he actually hates women.

It can be a subtle difference. Here's an illustration, as I see it:

SEXIST: A boss always giving the best assignments to male workers.
MISOGYNIST: A boss always giving the worst assignments to female workers.

There's a zone between the two where you might lose track of which is happening, but the difference is intent.

Frank Miller could be just giving the "best roles" to male characters, leaving the female characters with the inconsequential or just "okay" roles... but instead, he seems to be going out of his way to give them the worst roles. Physically, even sexually, subservient to men.

It's not just the kind of benign neglect that often comes with plain sexism. It's just a bit more specific than that, to my eye.

The movie 300 doesn't hold up to your claim. Lena Headey might not have had the center role in the movie, but her role was definitely important.

I guess my idea of a misogynist is more along the lines of someone like this [http://thesuffering.wikia.com/wiki/The_Creeper].

It not that women are portrayed sexily, it's that that's ALL they're good for in Miller comics. He's a misogynist.

Are you sure you mean misogynist? Does Miller really have a hatred of women? Like really a hatred, like the kind that he KKK has.

Probably, yeah. He's a weird dude.

Do you have any proof? Sexism isn't the same a misogyny.

Other than his comics, you mean? They're practically dripping with the whole "I don't get laid much and have a hard time wrapping my head around the notion that people with two X chromosomes are people" thing. Also unresolved anger issues re: women.

Now your just blatantly making assumptions.

 

[4173]

Meh. His influence has been somewhat tempered by the crazy, and he certainly isn't informing policy.

I guess, I know he's relatively famous, so maybe he has some sort of heightened responsibility (though I'm not sure I believe he does), but I don't have a problem with this sort of work existing/being created.



It seems like these things should be considered largely a problem with management and policy, but I dunno. I can't make up my mind as to the responsibility of the artists.

 

[HardkorSB]

Oversexualized? of course. Unrealistic? almost certainly.
And what's wrong with that? Women don't really look like this, so we shouldn't want to look at things that depict them otherwise?
Ridiculous.
Because its a "male" fantasy and there is no analogous thing for women? Because its objectification?

The thing is, it's not just about the looks.
The women in Miller's work both look and act like sex objects.
His virgin-whore complex (as well as a plethora of other sexual insecurities) can be seen after reading a few pages from most of his comics.
If he would put the same effort into creating female personalities as he does when creating male personalities, his work would feel totally different, regardless of the character design.

Now, I can understand some people don't find these hypersexualized female forms appealing. You are excused from the discussion. But most men will admit to feeling otherwise. And there IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. I don't know any men who think "man, i won't deal with any woman who doesn't look like Power Girl" who isn't an extremely flawed person on multiple other levels. No one living in reality thinks all women should or even CAN look like Barb Wire. And therein lies my point.

I can point at at least 2 people like that:
Frank Miller and Michael Bay.

Now, it's been said many times that hypermasculine characters aren't there for women's benefit, but rather to appeal to men and our self-aggrandizing fantasies. That's true enough. But the thing is, men aren't expected to look like that. Supposedly, women are expected to look like the unrealistic depictions in comics and videogames, so thats SO SEXIST and WHY THINGS MUST CHANGE. But then again, isn't the problem you, ladies?

No, the problem isn't with them.
When an employer will hire a pretty girl over an average girl who is clearly a better worker, that's not the fault of the women.
I've been to many job interviews and the same thing doesn't apply to men and female employers.
that's called sexism.

Men know not to expect women to be physics-defying objects of beauty.

Do they now? Have you asked all of them? Because I know a handful of men who would disagree with you.

We can also see the Punisher be a walking slab of muscle and NOT think we are somehow inadequate because WE don't look like that. So why are women supposedly unable to do this? Isn't it a bit ridiculous? Why are women somehow so incapable of telling fantasy from reality that they think they are expected to be what we see in media? Are we saying women are inferior to men in this regard? That's ridiculous. Women should be (and, in my experience, are) just as capable as men at realizing that the Olympian figures in media aren't real. Can't we all grow up and realize the problem isn't Scarlett Johannsen being able to floor a man with a single punch without being blemished by a single bulging muscle, but that we SAY there is a problem?

First of all (or rather, again), this isn't just about the looks. Females in fiction often act just as slutty as they look (and with Miller, they ALWAYS act like that).
Second of all (again), women often are expected to be hot.
For millenia, women were just decoration, fuck dolls, housekeepers, childmakers and childminders. Nothing more.
A lot of men still see women like that.
Just look at Christianity and Islam. 30-40% of the world's population claims to follow one of them and they both portray women as second class citizens.

Now, just to make it clear, I do believe that a lot of that sexism debate is people overreacting to little unimportant things. I also know some women who masturbated to things like Conan.
However, some of it is actually true and the sooner we'll address this and the more times we'll address this, the faster it will go away.

 

[Imthatguy]

snip

I understand the 'writing what you know' thing (sorry for the buffy speak) but when it gets to the point where 90% of females in media have 'superficially sexy' as a core personality trait somethings gotta change.

snip

sex·ism
noun \ˈsek-ˌsi-zəm\

2
: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex (Marian-Webter's)

You seem to fall in the same line of thinking that MovieBob does and I see how its easy to fall into that line of thinking.

Am I genuinely offended? No. Is it sexist? Yes simply because it reinforces the classic male stereotypes. Yes its sexism aimed at the very gender that eats it up. Sexism in media does not necessarily mean that it's aimed at the opposite gender.

And yes my argument is divorced this from the Real World because we are talking about Media not RL. I recognize that sexism against females is a huge problem IRL (And not a problem for males at all). Media being a reflection of life DOES reflect this but to say male targeted sexism in MEDIA doesn't exist is naive.

(Edit1: I, for the record, am not trying to undermine the fact that sexism happens to women in video games.

Edit 2:

]

We could also get into how pornography turns men into nothing but a phallus but I'm gonna keep is pg-13

Pretty weak stuff, right there. The reason men in porn are reduced to "nothing but a phallus" is because they know it's mostly men watching, and they're focused on the woman. In most cases, the guy is trying to avoid looking at or thinking about the guy, so of course he doesn't play a huge role (some pun intended).

It does not mean that it is not dehumanizing.)

 

[DudeistBelieve]

It not that women are portrayed sexily, it's that that's ALL they're good for in Miller comics. He's a misogynist. When he isn't having woman cause problems or being completely reliant on the men around them, he's portraying them as nothing but sexual objects. I think that's why people don't like how he portrays women. I'm all for having fictional women be sexy, but they should still be, ya know, PEOPLE. With convictions and motivations and personality beyond "I want the male hero inside me."

Okay but what if thats the only stories he wants to write? Should he only write what society finds acceptable?

If he wants to make money or not be called a talentless hack, yea. He can write whatever he wants, but he should be prepared to face criticism when he decides to publish it.

Frank-ly (nyuk nyuk nyuk), I'm not a fan of his writing style in general, but that's just because I'm a more upbeat kind of person who enjoys watching characters have fun in their worlds and not taking everything so seriously. Every story Miller writes is in a crapsack world, and I just don't like that. Again, personal preference. But there's no denying his portrayal of women is just... really, really awful. If you look at some of the quotes from him during the writing and character design process, you'll see what I mean. They're out there if you want to see them; I at least know Linkara cites a few as a reason for his disliking of Frank Miller.

A hack is someone that takes a job that he's not interested in doing just for the money. You're contradicting yourself.

Complaining about the way Miller portrays women in his comics is like bitching that John Woo's films have to many bullets and doves in it. It's just Miller's style. It may not be the best stories told ever, but you got to admit as far as exploitative male power fantasy writing goes Miller is pretty damn good at it.

Don't throw your dictionary at me, you know what I meant. And like I said, Miller can write about his childish "male power fantasy" all he wants, but when he publishes it, he opens it up to criticism and he can't choose who does and doesn't see it. It doesn't matter if it's "just his style," what matters is if the market likes it, and I'm of the opinion that it's sexist and misogynistic, and I'm not the only one who thinks so.

But of course.

It's probably just the tone, I get the feeling of "his art shouldn't exist" coming out of this thread when artistically it has as much right to exist as any other crap on the market.

Edit: And a lot of people use "Hack" incorrectly, so don't sweat it. Just be happy it's some stoner on a message board correcting you and not someone in real life when you're trying to make a valid point sir.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Yeah, no. See, the over-sexualisation of Miller's women tends to not only come from the bodies, but also because Miller himself is outright saying he's only doing it to be titillating and to appease both himself and the audience. Seriously, have you read the script for All-Star Batman and Robin? He's putting on a 4th wall breaking strip-tease for the 14-year-olds reading and for himself, nothing more.

Here's another big problem, all of the female characters Miller writes as of late, and ASBAR especially, run on the mindset that they're after men. More specifically Bruce, but in the 5 issues I got through I didn't see 2 named female characters talk to each other, and their conversations more often than not were taken up mostly by the dialogue "I'm having a date with Bruce Wayne" or implying that Bruce is the reason Black Canary is a badass just for being who he is.

Miller wrote some great comics, but now he's devolved into a sexist homophobic nut. I long for the day I can read a Miller comic that doesn't either hurt my eyes from terrible art or torgo syndrome dialogue.

So Miller admits that the sole point of it is simply sexploitation for the sake of sexploitation... Again, whats the problem? It works. He's good at writing it. He's not pretending it's some pretentious bullshit with a deep meaning.

No, he isn't. Miller's writing has gotten horrible frequently repeating a stupid sentence or phrase over and over, and I could be wrong but shouldn't a book titled "All-Star Batman and Robin" focus on, I dunno, BATMAN AND ROBIN? Besides, the only reason ASBAR even works on that level is because of Jim Lee's artwork, if Miller were put in charge of that you'd get more titillation from XKCD.

And yes, he is still trying to get a meaning across with a lot of his stories. He's trying to get across in ASBAR that Batman is the best superhero ever and every other hero is dumb. He's just bringing in a lot of crap to pad out an already bad story.

I've read some of it. It's not the best Batman story I've ever read and it's also not the worst.

 

[Vausch]

Yeah, no. See, the over-sexualisation of Miller's women tends to not only come from the bodies, but also because Miller himself is outright saying he's only doing it to be titillating and to appease both himself and the audience. Seriously, have you read the script for All-Star Batman and Robin? He's putting on a 4th wall breaking strip-tease for the 14-year-olds reading and for himself, nothing more.

Here's another big problem, all of the female characters Miller writes as of late, and ASBAR especially, run on the mindset that they're after men. More specifically Bruce, but in the 5 issues I got through I didn't see 2 named female characters talk to each other, and their conversations more often than not were taken up mostly by the dialogue "I'm having a date with Bruce Wayne" or implying that Bruce is the reason Black Canary is a badass just for being who he is.

Miller wrote some great comics, but now he's devolved into a sexist homophobic nut. I long for the day I can read a Miller comic that doesn't either hurt my eyes from terrible art or torgo syndrome dialogue.

So Miller admits that the sole point of it is simply sexploitation for the sake of sexploitation... Again, whats the problem? It works. He's good at writing it. He's not pretending it's some pretentious bullshit with a deep meaning.

No, he isn't. Miller's writing has gotten horrible frequently repeating a stupid sentence or phrase over and over, and I could be wrong but shouldn't a book titled "All-Star Batman and Robin" focus on, I dunno, BATMAN AND ROBIN? Besides, the only reason ASBAR even works on that level is because of Jim Lee's artwork, if Miller were put in charge of that you'd get more titillation from XKCD.

And yes, he is still trying to get a meaning across with a lot of his stories. He's trying to get across in ASBAR that Batman is the best superhero ever and every other hero is dumb. He's just bringing in a lot of crap to pad out an already bad story.

I've read some of it. It's not the best Batman story I've ever read and it's also not the worst.

"I'm the Goddamn Batman".

Try figuring out the time frame the first 3 issues take place in, I still haven't figured it out. I give it one bit of credit, Batman painting a room, himself, and Robin yellow and offering Green Lantern a glass of lemonade was hilarious. But overall the comic is very messed up, it makes Batman look psychotic.

 

[Kahunaburger]

That just seems sexist to me. That doesn't seem like he actually hates women.

It can be a subtle difference. Here's an illustration, as I see it:

SEXIST: A boss always giving the best assignments to male workers.
MISOGYNIST: A boss always giving the worst assignments to female workers.

There's a zone between the two where you might lose track of which is happening, but the difference is intent.

Frank Miller could be just giving the "best roles" to male characters, leaving the female characters with the inconsequential or just "okay" roles... but instead, he seems to be going out of his way to give them the worst roles. Physically, even sexually, subservient to men.

It's not just the kind of benign neglect that often comes with plain sexism. It's just a bit more specific than that, to my eye.

The movie 300 doesn't hold up to your claim. Lena Headey might not have had the center role in the movie, but her role was definitely important.

I

Most of her stuff was written for the movie, actually. She had a smaller role in the comic book because Frank Miller.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Most of her stuff was written for the movie, actually. She had a smaller role in the comic book because Frank Miller.

The movie still runs counter to the claim that he hates women. Sin City would be another example that shows that he doesn't hate women.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Most of her stuff was written for the movie, actually. She had a smaller role in the comic book because Frank Miller.

The movie still runs counter to the claim that he hates women.

How? He wasn't exactly involved in the writing process.

SinWomen in Refrigerators (also prostitutes) City would be another example that shows that he doesn't hate women.

Fixed.

 

[JimB]

The movie still runs counter to the claim that he hates women. Sin City would be another example that shows that he doesn't hate women.

She is one of two female characters* in the movie, both of whom get raped.

Oh, wait, I forgot there are female harem girls. So yes, the movie has two female rape victims and three or four sex slaves. That should lay to rest the theory that Frank Miller is a misogynist.

--

*EDIT: It may be unfair of me to describe the oracle as a character, but she has lines...sort of...so what the hell, let's count her.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Most of her stuff was written for the movie, actually. She had a smaller role in the comic book because Frank Miller.

The movie still runs counter to the claim that he hates women.

How? He wasn't exactly involved in the writing process.

SinWomen in Refrigerators (also prostitutes) City would be another example that shows that he doesn't hate women.

Fixed.

Are you sure, I thought that he had a voice in the making of the film?

As for your fixed comment, I don't get it. Why would a women be in a refrigerator?

She is one of two female characters in the movie, both of whom get raped.

Oh, wait, I forgot there are female harem girls. So yes, the movie has two female rape victims and three or four sex slaves. That should lay to rest the theory that Frank Miller is a misogynist.

It doesn't prove that he hates women, it just shows that he doesn't give them center roles. The movies time period should also be taken into consideration.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Yeah, no. See, the over-sexualisation of Miller's women tends to not only come from the bodies, but also because Miller himself is outright saying he's only doing it to be titillating and to appease both himself and the audience. Seriously, have you read the script for All-Star Batman and Robin? He's putting on a 4th wall breaking strip-tease for the 14-year-olds reading and for himself, nothing more.

Here's another big problem, all of the female characters Miller writes as of late, and ASBAR especially, run on the mindset that they're after men. More specifically Bruce, but in the 5 issues I got through I didn't see 2 named female characters talk to each other, and their conversations more often than not were taken up mostly by the dialogue "I'm having a date with Bruce Wayne" or implying that Bruce is the reason Black Canary is a badass just for being who he is.

Miller wrote some great comics, but now he's devolved into a sexist homophobic nut. I long for the day I can read a Miller comic that doesn't either hurt my eyes from terrible art or torgo syndrome dialogue.

So Miller admits that the sole point of it is simply sexploitation for the sake of sexploitation... Again, whats the problem? It works. He's good at writing it. He's not pretending it's some pretentious bullshit with a deep meaning.

No, he isn't. Miller's writing has gotten horrible frequently repeating a stupid sentence or phrase over and over, and I could be wrong but shouldn't a book titled "All-Star Batman and Robin" focus on, I dunno, BATMAN AND ROBIN? Besides, the only reason ASBAR even works on that level is because of Jim Lee's artwork, if Miller were put in charge of that you'd get more titillation from XKCD.

And yes, he is still trying to get a meaning across with a lot of his stories. He's trying to get across in ASBAR that Batman is the best superhero ever and every other hero is dumb. He's just bringing in a lot of crap to pad out an already bad story.

I've read some of it. It's not the best Batman story I've ever read and it's also not the worst.

"I'm the Goddamn Batman".

Try figuring out the time frame the first 3 issues take place in, I still haven't figured it out. I give it one bit of credit, Batman painting a room, himself, and Robin yellow and offering Green Lantern a glass of lemonade was hilarious. But overall the comic is very messed up, it makes Batman look psychotic.

Think thats bad? Try re-watching the DC Animated Universe starting with the first season of Batman. It's basically set in the 1950s, but the time the continuity ends it's borderline the near future.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

The movie still runs counter to the claim that he hates women. Sin City would be another example that shows that he doesn't hate women.

She is one of two female characters* in the movie, both of whom get raped.

Oh, wait, I forgot there are female harem girls. So yes, the movie has two female rape victims and three or four sex slaves. That should lay to rest the theory that Frank Miller is a misogynist.

--

*EDIT: It may be unfair of me to describe the oracle as a character, but she has lines...sort of...so what the hell, let's count her.

Don't the prostitutes in O-Town run their own racket?

 

[him over there]

I think it's fine to have women as sexual objects, both in the way they act and look. What I think is wrong is portraying this as accurate and the only point of women. The problem isn't that women are sexualised but the fact that all women are sexualised and only women are sexualised.

Ultimately it's the difference between saying "hey guys here's some fucking tits" and saying "Here are some women, they exist both in fantasy and reality only to serve men sexually."
Portray people as sexual objects fine, do it in a way that advocates that it is a realistic and morally sound depiction of women and it's wrong.

 

[BreakfastMan]

As for your fixed comment, I don't get it. Why would a women be in a refrigerator?

The phrase "women in refrigerators" refers to a recurring trope in comics. Specifically, that female characters are often raped/killed/abused, not to further their own character arcs or to develop them more as characters, but to give motivation to the male protagonist and to further the male protagonist's character/story arc.